NationStates Jolt Archive

John Adams: passed the Sedition Act which was aimed at destroying the Republican Party. The act completely did away with the 1st Amendment, and made it a crime to criticize any branch of government.

Brief description. (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0803344.html)
Full text. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719)


Andrew Jackson: passed the Indian Removal Act which forcibly removed all Native Americans from East of the Mississippi River and relocated them to the West. The "Trail of Tears" was the path which the government led the Cherokee Indians along, resulting in the death of 4000 Indians.

Brief description. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act)
Full text. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719)


Woodrow Wilson: Passed the Sedition Act of 1918, which forbade dissenting against the ongoing war or the conduct of the government, which was deemed hazardous to a US victory.

Brief description and full text. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918)


FDR: forcibly relocated 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans to special camps based solely on their race. This was considered necessary for the war effort.

Description. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment)
Full text. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74&page=transcript)


Nixon: well, we all know about Watergate.


Bush: and again, the illegal wiretapping, the PATRIOT Act, etc.


So, the question is, which one of these presidents conducted the gravest breach of our constitutional rights?

Andrew Jackson.

Adams, Wilson denied freedom of speech.

Bush and Nixon denied the right to privacy.

FDR denied the right to a fair trial.

Jackson did the worst of all, he permanently denied entire races of people the right to live and the right to self-determination.

[LIST]
John Adams: passed the Sedition Act which was aimed at destroying the Republican Party. The act completely did away with the 1st Amendment, and made it a crime to criticize any branch of government.

Brief description. (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0803344.html)
Full text. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719)



Just thought it should be noted that, the modern Republican party wasn't founded untill 1854, the one refered to there is the Democratic-Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) party which eventualy developed into teh modern Democratic party.

Your country is not old enough for a "throughout history" question....

Andrew Jackson.

Adams, Wilson denied freedom of speech.

Bush and Nixon denied the right to privacy.

FDR denied the right to a fair trial.

Jackson did the worst of all, he permanently denied entire races of people the right to live and the right to self-determination.

Rethink what FDR did. He denied a race the right to live depending on how long they had lived here.

Your country is not old enough for a "throughout history" question....

You're probably not old enough to remember Nixon. Our country is plenty old enough for a "throughout history" question -- perhaps in the grand scheme of things, 200 years isn't a lot. However, it is easily sufficient for a such question. That's like saying you're not old enough to discuss whatever bad actions you took in your past because you're "not old enough." It's utterly ridiculous.

Your country is not old enough for a "throughout history" question....

Of which country would you be a citizen?

Of which country would you be a citizen?

Take a guess.


And Jackson wanted whatever was best for the United States. So, if moving natives to make room for us, its good for the United States. He didnt have blind hatred as some claim.

Of which country would you be a citizen?

According to his profile, Iraq. :rolleyes:

[LIST]

FDR: forcibly relocated 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans to special camps based solely on their race. This was considered necessary for the war effort.

Description. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment)
Full text. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74&page=transcript)

I took a class in college that argued that the internment of Japanese citizens was actually better for them than what they would have gotten had the government not taken them. Think about it - they would have suffered mob rule if left out in public, and a number of them would have been lynched. The American people were pissed at the Japanese, moreso than they were pissed at Muslims after 9/11. Picture the beating of Arabs a hundred times over, at least. One could argue that it was for their own good.

Granted, though I am an FDR supporter, I am quick to point out one thing - the government basically robbed them after interning them. They seized their property and gave them $25 to start over. The reparations given out 40 years later are small consolation, really. They were a nice gesture on Reagan's part, but $20,000 at the time was worth about...say, a couple thousand dollars in comparison with 1940s money. They were without that for 40 years. A thousand dollars invested in the stock market in 1944, assuming it doubles in value every 7 years, is worth around $60,000 in 1984. I don't know if $20,000 was enough.

According to his profile, Iraq. :rolleyes:

That was my guess, but I wanted to make sure I knew before I told him that the US is older than his country. Which it is if he is from Iraq.

Why did so many people vote for Bush? Seriously, his actions pale in comparison to all the other restrictions on civil liberties. Hell, Wilson and Adams basically repealed the 1st Amendment. If the people who voted for Bush aren't totally ignorant, they're doing a good job pretending they are.

Rethink what FDR did. He denied a race the right to live depending on how long they had lived here.
FDR's persecution was temporary, Jackson's was permanent.

Your country is not old enough for a "throughout history" question....

In the grand scheme of things, no country is.

Why did so many people vote for Bush? Seriously, his actions pale in comparison to all the other restrictions on civil liberties. Hell, Wilson and Adams basically repealed the 1st Amendment. If the people who voted for Bush aren't totally ignorant, they're doing a good job pretending they are.

But Bush has taken part in denying all of the rights that the previous Presidents have by denying fair trial to "Terrorist" Supects, supporting torture, wiretapping without a warrant, fighting to keep his government so secret that we don't know what crimes he has commited, and restraining free speech for PR purposes and he isn't appologetic in the least.

FDR was bad, Wilson and Adams were bad, Jackson was godawful, and Nixon was a waste of oxygen, but none of them commited all of those offenses, each commited but one. It sounds to me as if Bush has a lot to answer to.

In the grand scheme of things, no country is.

Possibly Egypt, at a stretch.


Though I have to agree with East of Eden, that the "throughout history" shouldn't really be put there unless one wants to argue that History started when the American constitution was adopted.


That was my guess, but I wanted to make sure I knew before I told him that the US is older than his country. Which it is if he is from Iraq.

And that is relevent how?

Though I have to agree with East of Eden, that the "throughout history" shouldn't really be put there unless one wants to argue that History started when the American constitution was adopted.

Well, I was referring to US history. Obviously, there were no acts created under any US president prior to the formation of the US, so I thought it would be a moot point. Apparently not.

I'm a little surprised no one voted for Woodrow Wilson. The Sedition Act was probably worse than the Patriot Act in preventing dissent.

Why did so many people vote for Bush? Seriously, his actions pale in comparison to all the other restrictions on civil liberties. Hell, Wilson and Adams basically repealed the 1st Amendment. If the people who voted for Bush aren't totally ignorant, they're doing a good job pretending they are.

Adams, Jackson, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Nixon are all dead. Bush isn't.
It's always easier to remember recent history than not so recent history (for obvious reason). If this question comes up in another thirty years, whoever is currently president will probably win.

Well, I was referring to US history.

Silly me. Thinking that "history" didn't just refer to one country.

(BTW, I am saying this in jest. The part you quoted was just an aside to a reply to Keruvalia.

Obviously, there were no acts created under any US president prior to the formation of the US, so I thought it would be a moot point. Apparently not.

There have been other presidentss though, "throughout history"

There have been other presidentss though, "throughout history"
That's probably true, after all, a president is just someone who "presides", but I can't think of any pre-US presidents. Anyone have examples?

Take a guess.


And Jackson wanted whatever was best for the United States. So, if moving natives to make room for us, its good for the United States. He didnt have blind hatred as some claim.

yep, thats why I think he is one of our better presidents.

John Adams: passed the Sedition Act which was aimed at destroying the Republican Party. The act completely did away with the 1st Amendment, and made it a crime to criticize any branch of government.

Brief description. (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0803344.html)
Full text. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719)


Andrew Jackson: passed the Indian Removal Act which forcibly removed all Native Americans from East of the Mississippi River and relocated them to the West. The "Trail of Tears" was the path which the government led the Cherokee Indians along, resulting in the death of 4000 Indians.

Brief description. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act)
Full text. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719)


Woodrow Wilson: Passed the Sedition Act of 1918, which forbade dissenting against the ongoing war or the conduct of the government, which was deemed hazardous to a US victory.

Brief description and full text. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918)


FDR: forcibly relocated 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans to special camps based solely on their race. This was considered necessary for the war effort.

Description. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment)
Full text. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74&page=transcript)


Nixon: well, we all know about Watergate.


Bush: and again, the illegal wiretapping, the PATRIOT Act, etc.


So, the question is, which one of these presidents conducted the gravest breach of our constitutional rights?


All breaches are grave.

And Jackson wanted whatever was best for the United States. So, if moving natives to make room for us, its good for the United States. He didnt have blind hatred as some claim.

Okay, so it's in the best interests of the US to forcibly relocated thousands of Native Americans, murdering many hundreds and starving thousands more, therefore it is okay? Of course there was no blind hatred. It was a completely Machiavellian act to benefit the plantation class in the South. Murder for profit is just as bad as murder for blind hatred.

yep, thats why I think he is one of our better presidents.

So all one has to do is murder innocents and steal their land for profit to become one of the "better presidents?" :headbang:

By your analysis, Hitler and Stalin were great leaders, because they did what was best for the State. They both built their nations into super powers, arguably what was "best" for the State.

This howeever, ignores the human and ethical costs of such "progress." The interests of the State and the interests of the people are more often than not mutually exclusive. People should not be considered a means to an end; the people are the end itself.

Nixon's actions are insignificant compared to that of the others listed.

All breaches are grave.

Yes, well, I'm pretty sure that Hitler was worse than the cookie thief, nonetheless. I meant the worst one -- for many people, all the breaches seem wrong, but there must be a clear worst.

Why did so many people vote for Bush? Seriously, his actions pale in comparison to all the other restrictions on civil liberties. Hell, Wilson and Adams basically repealed the 1st Amendment. If the people who voted for Bush aren't totally ignorant, they're doing a good job pretending they are.
That is due to the fact that you forgot another Presidential Act concocted by Bush, namely:

The Iraq Deserves Invasion, Oppression, and Terrorizing Act, or IDIOT Act for short.

Bush, for trying to act intelligent.

..What? You walked right into that one.

ive always hated andrew jackson the most. the indians got a supreme court ruling that allowed them to stay where they were. jackson didnt care and moved them out anyway.

bush is especially galling because its happening on my watch. i dont like being implicated in his stupid foreign policy and his useless wars.

The Iraq Deserves Invasion, Oppression, and Terrorizing Act, or IDIOT Act for short.

I'm not talking about Iraq though. Whether you agree or disagree with the invasion, it certainly doesn't infringe on civil liberties.

Yes, well, I'm pretty sure that Hitler was worse than the cookie thief, nonetheless. I meant the worst one -- for many people, all the breaches seem wrong, but there must be a clear worst.

The most recent, because the lessons of the past haven't been heeded.

yep, thats why I think he is one of our better presidents.

Ah, I see. The ends justify the means, then? Good to know.

So, I'll play out a scenario for you to see how great a president that works under that principle is.

Suppose there is a disease that kills 95% of the members of your race and about 50% of the members of another one. The rest are genetically immune. Another disease has made artificial insemination unsafe somehow. Now, suppose you, your mother (still within reproduction capabilities) and your 13-year old sister were among the lucky 5%. The members of the race that only got half-killed off are now in power, and they need to repopulate the country with people that are immune. So, they pass an act that sends your mother and sister off to camps where they'll be forced to reproduce. Via natural means. Meanwhile, you, knowing your mother is having what a very sarcastic person would call the time of her life at "repopulation camps" (which some people, for some reason I cannot fathom, call rape camps), are sent off to be part of the workforce and keep the country running through your (and many other people of your races') slave labor.

The president here did what he needed to do to keep the country running. Does he still seem like a good president to you or would he look like a psychopath to you as he would look to me?

Remember, the ends justify the means for the country to thrive. You said that, and you used that as your criteria to judge a genocidal leader you had.

So all one has to do is murder innocents and steal their land for profit to become one of the "better presidents?" :headbang:

By your analysis, Hitler and Stalin were great leaders, because they did what was best for the State. They both built their nations into super powers, arguably what was "best" for the State.
Yes to both points. At times sacfrices must be made for the greater good. This is human nature and shouldn't be feared. It should be embraced. Through struggle comes greatness.


This howeever, ignores the human and ethical costs of such "progress." The interests of the State and the interests of the people are more often than not mutually exclusive. People should not be considered a means to an end; the people are the end itself.
People are insignifigate(sp?). You and I have no more value than the common insect and in 50 years we will not be remembered. However if we work to maintain our empire, such actions would be remembered.

The president here did what he needed to do to keep the country running. Does he still seem like a good president to you or would he look like a psychopath to you as he would look to me?
Under that case he seems like a good president. If the country falls apart you would have nothing.

Remember, the ends justify the means for the country to thrive. You said that, and you used that as your criteria to judge a genocidal leader you had.
whos the genocidal leader?

Yes to both points. At times sacfrices must be made for the greater good. This is human nature and shouldn't be feared. It should be embraced. Through struggle comes greatness.


People are insignifigate(sp?). You and I have no more value than the common insect and in 50 years we will not be remembered. However if we work to maintain our empire, such actions would be remembered.

Read some 1984, please, THEN discuss that with me.

That is, in case you want to actually learn something.

Under that case he seems like a good president. If the country falls apart you would have nothing.

Well. You want to live in a dystopian state, but at least you pass the coherency test...

Read some 1984, please, THEN discuss that with me.

That is, in case you want to actually learn something.

I've read it. Bunch of liberal fairy tales if you ask me.

I've read it. Bunch of liberal fairy tales if you ask me.

Which is why I do not ask you, instead deciding to actually read and do research on it.

My monography is about it. Orwell presented a state that was socialist, with some capitalist details. It wasn't liberal anymore than an essay on arts is. Orwell presented the idea of what happens when certain ideas - nationalism mostly, followed by socialism - are taken to their extremes.

But, whatever. Your face under the boot.

But, whatever. Your face under the boot.

In what way my friend?

Amazing, I'm completely amazed at how Bush isn't leading this poll.

In what way my friend?

In the way that you accept the bigger group to do whatever it wishes if it's for the "good of the group", as opposed to trying to find a way around. That way you're accepting - and favoring - your own oppression.

John Adams: passed the Sedition Act which was aimed at destroying the Republican Party. The act completely did away with the 1st Amendment, and made it a crime to criticize any branch of government.

Brief description. (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0803344.html)
Full text. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719)


Andrew Jackson: passed the Indian Removal Act which forcibly removed all Native Americans from East of the Mississippi River and relocated them to the West. The "Trail of Tears" was the path which the government led the Cherokee Indians along, resulting in the death of 4000 Indians.

Brief description. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act)
Full text. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719)


Woodrow Wilson: Passed the Sedition Act of 1918, which forbade dissenting against the ongoing war or the conduct of the government, which was deemed hazardous to a US victory.

Brief description and full text. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918)


FDR: forcibly relocated 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans to special camps based solely on their race. This was considered necessary for the war effort.

Description. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment)
Full text. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74&page=transcript)


Nixon: well, we all know about Watergate.


Bush: and again, the illegal wiretapping, the PATRIOT Act, etc.


So, the question is, which one of these presidents conducted the gravest breach of our constitutional rights?

Um, so how is trying to win an already won election by having goons break into a hotel and steal Democratic secrets a breach of Constitutional rights? :confused:

I mean, the rest of your choices have legislation involved. At the end of the day, Watergate is about as intrusive on Constitutional rights as Carter's boycott of the 1980 Olympics.

I took a class in college that argued that the internment of Japanese citizens was actually better for them than what they would have gotten had the government not taken them. Think about it - they would have suffered mob rule if left out in public, and a number of them would have been lynched. The American people were pissed at the Japanese, moreso than they were pissed at Muslims after 9/11. Picture the beating of Arabs a hundred times over, at least. One could argue that it was for their own good.I'm sure their property not being returned after they were freed was for their own good too...

Why did so many people vote for Bush? Seriously, his actions pale in comparison to all the other restrictions on civil liberties. Hell, Wilson and Adams basically repealed the 1st Amendment. If the people who voted for Bush aren't totally ignorant, they're doing a good job pretending they are.It might just be the fact that Bush's violations are so much more obvious since we're living through them.